Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[flip]

Global warming doesn't mean the entire globe will get warm. As I understand it global warming will equate to climate changes that could manifest in many different ways.

Yes, no one seems to really know what will happen. We can enter an ice age as well, if the global warming stops the oceans from moving long distances, heating and cooling down different places. Scary..

 

[Jiro]

what the fudge is going on here?

 

[darkdog]

Yes, no one seems to really know what will happen. We can enter an ice age as well, if the global warming stops the oceans from moving long distances, heating and cooling down different places. Scary..

In other words, it's not falsifiable. Whatever happens will be blamed on global warming. That's one of the many reasons I'm so wary of this whole global warming/climate change thing.

 

[sequoias]

We have NOT witnessed the ice age thousands of years ago so we don't know what really happens. All we can do is to see what happens.

 

[flip]

In other words, it's not falsifiable. Whatever happens will be blamed on global warming. That's one of the many reasons I'm so wary of this whole global warming/climate change thing.

It isn't that complicated. It's possible to track changes to global warming. The problem is to forecast what those changes excactly will do with the earth.

When we notice that the density of salt in the northern atlantic decreases, it's easy to spot it to be due to melting of poles. Scientist also know that the salt density is what makes the warm water drop and go back south. Decreased salt density in the north ocean will slow down the circulation. It's already slowing down. What is complicated, is what the consquences of this will be.

This denial of global warming reminds me the problems Galileo and Darwin faced in their lifetime. People simply didn't understand how science could figure out those things and did not belive them. Nowdays 97 percent of climate researchers agree with each other, but still many people thinks global warming is controversial and yet to be proved.

 

[kokonut]

It isn't that complicated. It's possible to track changes to global warming. The problem is to forecast what those changes excactly will do with the earth.

When we notice that the density of salt in the northern atlantic decreases, it's easy to spot it to be due to melting of poles. Scientist also know that the salt density is what makes the warm water drop and go back south. Decreased salt density in the north ocean will slow down the circulation. It's already slowing down. What is complicated, is what the consquences of this will be.

This denial of global warming reminds me the problems Galileo and Darwin faced in their lifetime. People simply didn't understand how science could figure out those things and did not belive them. Nowdays 97 percent of climate researchers agree with each other, but still many people thinks global warming is controversial and yet to be proved.

It isn't the denial about global warming per se but the idiocy to believe that man is responsible for global warming. That's the crux of the problem here. Global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the millions of years. And it continues to this day. It's cyclical. It's natural. Earth's system is very dynamic and changes with the sun's energy output. Quite a complex and very dynamic Earth system. There is not one report or evidence that can prove without a doubt that increasing CO2 concentration amount in the atmosphere is the sole major cause of global warming. Not one! So, therein lies a problem...most notably on those who actually believe that man has this capability to change the climate on a global scale (short of an all out nuclear war). We cannot even stop a tornado or even a hurricane, so what makes you think that man can control climate on a global scale? That's when fantasy begins. It's time to take the red pill. This is a policy driven agenda. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[kokonut]

We have NOT witnessed the ice age thousands of years ago so we don't know what really happens. All we can do is to see what happens.

Actually, we can. There are numerous ways to study what ancient climates were like using natural records such as tree rings, oxygen-isotope sea core studies, ice core studies, ancient lake bed sediments, rhythmites and varves, a variety of chemical analyses, radio carbon dating, paleomagnitism, geology and many more dating techniques out there. It's called paleoclimatology by using natural records that can go back thousands, hundred of thousands to million of years into the past to the present to help us understand what past paleoclimate was like.

The problem is trying to assign a single source as a the main cause of driving climate change. In this case, incredulously so, CO2 which makes up only .03 percent (not 3 percent but .03 percent or .0003) of the total atmospheric gases by volume while man contributes about .0009 (or .000009) percent of the total CO2 into the atmosphere. Vanishingly small when compared to water vapor that makes up as much as 3 percent of the total atmosphere gases which is quite significant in of itself compared to CO2 at .03 percent.

 

[darkdog]

When we notice that the density of salt in the northern atlantic decreases, it's easy to spot it to be due to melting of poles. Scientist also know that the salt density is what makes the warm water drop and go back south. Decreased salt density in the north ocean will slow down the circulation. It's already slowing down. What is complicated, is what the consquences of this will be.

Everything you just said there may be perfectly true, but it doesn't follow that our CO2 is to blame for it. Nor does it follow that it's a bad thing. Nor does it follow that we can fix it by destroying economic activity.

This denial of global warming reminds me the problems Galileo and Darwin faced in their lifetime. People simply didn't understand how science could figure out those things and did not belive them. Nowdays 97 percent of climate researchers agree with each other, but still many people thinks global warming is controversial and yet to be proved.

As far back as 2005, I used to believe in it and take the AGW advocates at their word. Then I noticed there were scientists that disagreed despite insistence that the debate was over. Those who even dared question the orthodoxy were maligned as deniers, big oil stooges, fascists, psychopaths, etc. I noticed a lot of group think. I also noticed complaints from scientists about losing funding or even worrying about losing their jobs for not toeing the party line. Additionally, the blatant hypocrisy from AGW elites like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Ariana Huffington doesn't help much.

I lost my trust that these scientists were acting in a scientific manner. If presented with data that completely destroys the hypothesis, I don't trust they would change their minds. I believe they would somehow "debunk" it away, resorting even to ad hominems and blatant dishonesty. The burden of proof is on them and their behavior has been very unconvincing.

EDIT: I should add, there are obviously some scientists honest enough to change their mind because that has happened. But when I think about guys like James Hansen, no way.

 

[Hwy99]

<--YOU WROTE THIS!!!

That is not the source that there are any planets that does not have its star.

 

[Hwy99]

Sure there is a difference, especially on warm days by almost a 30 degrees difference. The cold in Barrow stays around a lot longer due it's longitude. Just take a look.
Barrow - Climatological Data - Barrow
Fairbanks - Climatological Data - Fairbanks International Airport

There you go.

What's better to compare is between Vancouver, BC and The Dalles, Oregon with both near large body of water and similar elevation.

The Dalles is much far from the ocean than Vancouver BC and are more drier, with strong windy. Now you wonder why The Dalles area are so yellow compare to Vancouver BC. Also I don't see that make you think The Dalles are near large body of water, The Dalles are only on the river while Vancouver BC are on the beach behind the islands from Washington to Victoria Island.

 

[Hwy99]

Wind is created when there are large enough temperature and/or pressure differences. Heat rises, cold sinks. Heat convection and all that.

Actually the heat are in their cores, not the atmosphere. Earth's core are very hot too.

The warmer ocean has a moderating effect on temperature on coastal towns anywhere in Greenland. Just as the Arctic Ocean has a moderating effect on Barrow, Alaska when compared to Fairbanks during the cold months.

Yes, it's cold year round in Qaanaaq, the northern-most town ABOVE the Arctic Circle. Same thing for Barrow, Alaska but it's the ocean's heat that helps moderate the temperatures there in coastal areas. Now, a temperature of 70 might not seem warm to you but if you live in a cold place that 60, 65 or 70 degree weather would be heaven, especially with the sun shining. Temperatures are measured in the shade, not in the full sun. Standing in full sun you will feel considerably warmer than 70s if there is no or little wind.

Can you grow plants there? Now you see my point.

 

[flip]

It isn't the denial about global warming per se but the idiocy to believe that man is responsible for global warming. That's the crux of the problem here. Global warming and cooling have occurred throughout the millions of years. And it continues to this day. It's cyclical. It's natural. Earth's system is very dynamic and changes with the sun's energy output. Quite a complex and very dynamic Earth system. There is not one report or evidence that can prove without a doubt that increasing CO2 concentration amount in the atmosphere is the sole major cause of global warming. Not one! So, therein lies a problem...most notably on those who actually believe that man has this capability to change the climate on a global scale (short of an all out nuclear war). We cannot even stop a tornado or even a hurricane, so what makes you think that man can control climate on a global scale? That's when fantasy begins. It's time to take the red pill. This is a policy driven agenda. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for the "sole major cause", you are wrong. CO2 have been proved to increase temperature in controlled expirments in labs. The last 100 years, human activities are responsible for 30 percent of CO2 in the air. We know this by doing test of CO2 in the air with chemistry, and can track down where CO2 come from. We have measured an increase of temperature along with an increase of CO2, that correlate with lab tests. What we lack is a model that can explain the rise in temperature by natural causes. Skeptics are frantically trying to find scientifical models that can explain the temperature rise by natural causes, but have failed so far. The sun model is at it best, funny and have close to zero scientifical support, even NASA who study the sun and delivers the hard facts, confirms that global warming seems to be due to human activities like it said in your link.

Your arguments are based on beliving. You belive something is false, even if you don't have a scientifically supported model that can replace what you think is false.

 

[flip]

Actually, we can. There are numerous ways to study what ancient climates were like using natural records such as tree rings, oxygen-isotope sea core studies, ice core studies, ancient lake bed sediments, rhythmites and varves, a variety of chemical analyses, radio carbon dating, paleomagnitism, geology and many more dating techniques out there. It's called paleoclimatology by using natural records that can go back thousands, hundred of thousands to million of years into the past to the present to help us understand what past paleoclimate was like.

The problem is trying to assign a single source as a the main cause of driving climate change. In this case, incredulously so, CO2 which makes up only .03 percent (not 3 percent but .03 percent or .0003) of the total atmospheric gases by volume while man contributes about .0009 (or .000009) percent of the total CO2 into the atmosphere. Vanishingly small when compared to water vapor that makes up as much as 3 percent of the total atmosphere gases which is quite significant in of itself compared to CO2 at .03 percent.

You seriouly think that climate researchers "knows" this and try to hide this fact from the public, or are so stupid they don't realize this?

 

[flip]

Everything you just said there may be perfectly true, but it doesn't follow that our CO2 is to blame for it. Nor does it follow that it's a bad thing. Nor does it follow that we can fix it by destroying economic activity.


As far back as 2005, I used to believe in it and take the AGW advocates at their word. Then I noticed there were scientists that disagreed despite insistence that the debate was over. Those who even dared question the orthodoxy were maligned as deniers, big oil stooges, fascists, psychopaths, etc. I noticed a lot of group think. I also noticed complaints from scientists about losing funding or even worrying about losing their jobs for not toeing the party line. Additionally, the blatant hypocrisy from AGW elites like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Ariana Huffington doesn't help much.

I lost my trust that these scientists were acting in a scientific manner. If presented with data that completely destroys the hypothesis, I don't trust they would change their minds. I believe they would somehow "debunk" it away, resorting even to ad hominems and blatant dishonesty. The burden of proof is on them and their behavior has been very unconvincing.

EDIT: I should add, there are obviously some scientists honest enough to change their mind because that has happened. But when I think about guys like James Hansen, no way.

To bad this is a new science to many people, but if you did take your time to read the theory and research done by different parts, you would have to rely less on what people say about each other.

 

[darkdog]

It's not just a new science to laypeople- it's a new science to scientists themselves. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that it crosses so many disciplines of science. I started to look into the science a while ago and realized that was a monumental task. Here's what I wrote in another forum in 2007.

Here's the difficult part with global warming. It has become such a political thing that you don't know who's right any more. The green side says that skeptics are just in the pockets of big business and big oil and it's all about money. The skeptics say the greens are in bed with socialists and environmental groups who use fear to further their agenda. Greens say there's a vast consensus in the scientific community on the man-made global warming theory. Skeptics say scientists who don't agree with the theory have their funding pulled, suffer persecution, can't get their papers published, and even risk losing their jobs, so the consensus isn't objective.

Then we get into debunking. "The Great Global Warming Swindle has been totally debunked!" we hear the greens side say. "Well, An Inconvenient Truth has been totally debunked!" For every piece of science one could put up, there will be some website somewhere debunking it. Then there will be a website somewhere debunking the claims made in that website. Then there will be a website debunking that. Everything has been totally debunked somewhere by someone. People in internet forums go back and forth on the science debunking each other from information pulled off some website, yet these people don't really seem to know what they're talking about. Their knowledge just seems to be a product of their biased research from questionable sources.

So what can you do to get down to the truth of the matter? I'll tell you exactly what you can do. First, get a bunch of introductory level textbooks on climatology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, modelling, and research methods and learn the basics of those topics. Then, get higher level textbooks on those subjects and become more proficient. Then, look through all the research, study the data, and pay attention to methodology. Then, interview scientists on both sides of the debate. Then, conduct some research of your own. Then, go to your graduation ceremony and receive your diploma in climatology. By this point, you will hopefully have realized that the earth is extremely complex and even the most brilliant scientists can be wrong on anything and even science isn't immune from emotions, politics, and group think. Even still, you'll be able to say that you have formed an intelligent objective opinion, even if it is somewhat qualified. Then, go out to the world, proclaim the knowledge you have just obtained, and don't be too surprised when some website pops up debunking everything you have to say.

Until I find the time to do that, I'll have to be content to sit on the sidelines and see the behavior and motives of those pushing the hypothesis. Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.

 

[deafskeptic]

Global warming doesn't mean the entire globe will get warm. As I understand it global warming will equate to climate changes that could manifest in many different ways.

Exactly. Global warming should more properly be called climate change. Some sections of Earth like the Norweigian area are like to get colder rather than warmer while England could become almost tropical due to other factors that doesn't affect Norway.

 

[shel90]

Exactly. Global warming should more properly be called climate change. Some sections of Earth like the Norweigian area are like to get colder rather than warmer while England could become almost tropical due to other factors that doesn't affect Norway.

I agree with you and Rockdrummer.

 

[flip]

It's not just a new science to laypeople- it's a new science to scientists themselves. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that it crosses so many disciplines of science. I started to look into the science a while ago and realized that was a monumental task. Here's what I wrote in another forum in 2007.

Until I find the time to do that, I'll have to be content to sit on the sidelines and see the behavior and motives of those pushing the hypothesis. Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.

We know that 97 of climate researchers agree with each other from surveys, so it's not just something that the "Green side" claims.

"Skeptics say scientists who don't agree with the theory have their funding pulled, suffer persecution, can't get their papers published, and even risk losing their jobs, so the consensus isn't objective.". This one is a bit weird. Sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. Do you really belive it's a force out there that control 97 percent of climate researchers? If so, I suppose you belive other brances of science also suffers from this?

Also, your last claim, "Mankind is innocent until proven guilty and so far, the prosecution's behavior is very suspect.", does not work in this case. What if the prosectuor is right, but the man keep on denying, and suddenly, it's too late. People start to die from famine due to loss of food sources, drought, etc etc. It's even possible to deny darwin was right, it's possible to deny the whole science, but it does not mean it's smart or sane to do so.

 

[kokonut]

There you go.
The Dalles is much far from the ocean than Vancouver BC and are more drier, with strong windy. Now you wonder why The Dalles area are so yellow compare to Vancouver BC. Also I don't see that make you think The Dalles are near large body of water, The Dalles are only on the river while Vancouver BC are on the beach behind the islands from Washington to Victoria Island.

It's about the equivalent distance from Barrow (a coastal town) to Fairbanks (inland town) to that of Vancouver, BC (a coastal town) to The Dalles, Oregon (inland). Geography plays a role in those towns.

 

[kokonut]

Actually the heat are in their cores, not the atmosphere. Earth's core are very hot too.

Can you grow plants there? Now you see my point.

Wind is created when there are temperature and pressure differences. It's all about heat exchanges. There is heat in the atmosphere, too. Heat is everywhere. There is heat in ice. Until you actually understand the physics of heat you'll get it. Right now, you do not. Please take the time to read up on these things.

Yes, you can grow plants in Greenland. You are so misinformed. They do have crops there believe it or not, even in Fairbanks which gets much more colder than southern Greenland. In Greenland they grow potatos, cauliflowers, brocollis, roots and herbs, cabbage, radish, and even carrots.
Read a learn for a change.
Greenland: land of ice goes green as warming turns the cabbages into kings - Times Online

Farming on the island, which was previously limited, is now increasing due to a longer growing season and opening of new land to cultivation. Potato and radish crops had bumper years even as far north as Nuuk, only 185 miles from the Arctic Circle. The 2007 growing season marks the first time that Greenlanders have been able to grow broccoli. Carrots and cauliflower are also available from local farms, although all three crops still can't be produced in large enough quantities to feed the population without help from sources in Denmark. A growing number of sheep and cows have appeared, also taking advantage of a longer summer season.

Greenland : Weather Underground